This Covid-19 breakout has proved that most of the employees in IT Industry especially software developers can work remotely on a full time basis. But that leaves us with an argument of whether there should be a pay cut for those working from home.
I firmly believe that there shouldn't be any reduction to the salaries of work from home employees only on an biased belief that these employees are less productive. I understand that there could be some who are not completely willing to do their best as no one is keeping an eye on them. But that should do unjust with the ones doing good or even better than normal office work.
What are your ideas/thoughts on this situation? Are you ready to accept a pay cut?
Top comments (6)
I think not, as long as you work your 8 hours or whatever the agreement was it should be the same.
If they say you are going to save money on gas and time might be true, but think that you will use more power and you prob need to spend some money on make your home more comfortable (better desk, chair, router, etc)
From my understanding pay-cuts have little to do with the perceived production of a remote employee but rather has to do with adjusting for the cost of living where the employee resides.
I think pay should be location agnostic and there's little to no research to suggest that remote workers are less productive so I don't see a reason to cut pay.
Agreed. Also not having to pay for office space, furniture, equipment, utilities, electricity etc. for on site employees should give the employer maybe some little extra savings they could pass on to their remote workers... But no some of them decide to be double cheap 🤷
I think it's OK to change salaries based on where you are. If I live in NYC or SF then a salary of lets say $120k won't be enough of will barely be enough because of cost of living, but take that pay to somewhere like Denver or Atlanta and all of a sudden that $120k will buy you more than you ever could in NYC/SF.
So I feel like pay based on where you live is OK. At the end of the day if you want to draw talent from costly cities then you are just going to have to pay them more or else they won't be able to afford to work for you.
It's not John is more qualified than Jane so he gets an extra $50k a year. It's John has 4x the monthly rent that Jane does so without the extra 50k he can't even take the job.
I would say no. You do the same work with probably the same results. You should get payed the same. All you, personally, save is the time to get to and from work, which normally doesn't get payed anyways.
As a freelancer though, that's a different story. I see a lot of freelancers that give a discount depending on the amount of possible remote work, as compensation for the gained time by not having to travel. Though I would say the same argument should be valid for them.
Not going to defend this since I wouldn't take a pay cut to go remote.
The whole pay cut argument seems to be more of a cost savings measure from the employer's perspective than viewing remote workers is productive. The thing I hear a lot in these kinds of interviews is:
There's no shame in walking away if you're not going to get what you're worth.